Investigation of 3D Printing Filling Structures Effect on Mechanical Properties and Surface Roughness of PET-G Material Products

Abstract

3D printing filling structures at prototyping and design stage are increasingly important issue for products with complicated shapes. The objective of the present study is to investigate 3D printing filling structures effect on mechanical properties and surface roughness of PET-G (Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol) material products. The PET-G material was preferred because of its durability, high transparency and odor characteristics. A variety of methods are used to manufacture products. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. One of these methods to adopt for this investigation was FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) 3D printing method. The FDM method was considered that it has a direct effect on the mechanical properties and surface roughness of the product. The experiments were carried out using PET-G materials with different printing filling structures (rectilinear, triangular, full honeycomb), at processing speed of 50 mm/s.  Uniaxial tensile tests, hardness measurements, and surface roughness measurements of the printed products were carried out. The results were analyzed and compared.

Keywords

• 3D Printer,PET-G,FDM,Filling structures

References

1. Ahrabi A.Z., 2009. Pet Atıkları Kullanılarak Kompozit Malzeme Üretiminin Araştırılması, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kimya Mühendisliği anabilim Dalı, Ankara. Azari, Nikzad, S., 2009. The Evolution of Rapid Prototyping In Dentistry: A Review, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 216 – 225. Billiet, T., Vandenhaute, M., Schelfhout, J., Vlierberghe, S. V., Dubruel, P., 2012. A Review of Trends And Limitations In Hydrogel-Rapid Prototyping for Tissue Engineering, Biomaterials 33, 6020-6041. Çelik, D., 2015. Tersine Mühendislikle Üç Boyutlu Yazıcı Tasarımı Ve Üretimi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karabük Üni., Fen Bil. Enstitüsü. Chhabra, M., Singh, R., 2011. Rapid Casting Solutions: A Review, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 328 -350. Herrmanna, K., Gärtnera, C., Güllmara, D., Krämera, M., Reichenbacha, J. R., 2014. 3D Printing of MRI Compatible Components: Why Every MRI Research Group Should Have A Low-Budget 3D Printer, Medical Engineering & Physics, 1373-1380. http://www.rigid3d.com/rigid3d-zero2-3d-yazici/ Kruth, J.P., Leu, M. C., Nakagawa, T., 1998. Progress in Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Prototyping, Keynote Papers, 47(2), 525-540 Roberson, D.A., Espalin, D., Wicker, R.B., 2013. 3D Printer Selection: A Decision-making Evaluation and Ranking Model, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 201-212. Sood, A.K., Ohdar, R.K., Mahapatra, S.S., 2010. Parametric Appraisal of Mechanical Property of Fused Deposition Modelling Processed Part, Materials & Desing, 31(1), 287-295. Wang, W., Wang, T. Y., Yang, Z., Liu, L., Tong, X., Tong, W., Deng, J., Chen, F., and Liu, X. 2013. Cost-Effective Printing of 3D Objects With Skin-Frame Structures. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 5. Wilson, S. 1990. A New Face of Aerospace Honeycomb. Materials & Design 11, 6, 323 – 326.